Planescape Planescape IS D&D Says Jeremy Crawford

Planescape is Jeremy Crawford's favourite D&D setting. "It is D&D", he says, as he talks about how in the 2024 core rulebook updates Planescape will be more up front and center as "the setting of settings".

 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Stormonu

Legend
To be pedantic . . . no. While both the terms "planet" and "dwarf planet" have the word planet in them, they are considered two different types of objects by the astronomy community, dwarf planets are not considered a subset of planets. (source: I teach astronomy)

However . . . this is a semantic battle. As is the argument over universe vs. multiverse. We are arguing about the proper use of terms, which is a changeable thing and decided often arbitrarily by other humans.

After teaching the proper astronomical definition of terms . . . most of my students just consider Pluto and the other dwarf planets as simply small planets, a type of planet. And that works just fine even if it isn't the official definition. It certainly heads off the "PLUTO IS A PLANET" debates they sometimes pick up on . . . .
One of my more favorite T-shirts I own...

1697128517172.png
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Correct me if I am wrong, but for 5e aren't only the core books canon? So, but that measure the Vecna adventure is not canon too, correct?
What he is concerned about is that Vecna's Eldritch Bugaloo will be the set-up for what the default canon in the new Core books ends up being, as sort of a soft reset of expectations (which seems what theybhabe been building towards with the way Lore is presented as a cafeteria of options, which is all itnia, in books like Fizban's and Bigby's).
 


dave2008

Legend
What he is concerned about is that Vecna's Eldritch Bugaloo will be the set-up for what the default canon in the new Core books ends up being, as sort of a soft reset of expectations (which seems what theybhabe been building towards with the way Lore is presented as a cafeteria of options, which is all itnia, in books like Fizban's and Bigby's).
OK, I guess that could be a concern if you are looking for things to be concerned about. Maybe it has been to long since I read the 2014 books, but how are Fizban's and Bigby's resetting expectations?
 

Stormonu

Legend
Until they change their mind again.
As they say, the only thing that is constant is change.

Whenever a team changes, so do the priorities and thought processes. The promises of one set of individuals are never ensured to be carried forward with the next, and a lot of times new bloods like to "mix things up". That's why I always takes the statements of any business with a grain of salt. As soon as there is a change in staff, you're not guaranteed they'll stay the course. For D&D, that was proved with the OGL, multiple times. All it would take is the next set of developers (2027, 2034) to decide that it'd make them more money if EVERYTHING was core/canon to keep people invested in buying into the game.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
OK, I guess that could be a concern if you are looking for things to be concerned about. Maybe it has been to long since I read the 2014 books, but how are Fizban's and Bigby's resetting expectations?
I would agree, and think it is a matter of refining and improving the "toolbox with a robust base suggestion" approach 5E has had all along. The "First World" Platonizing mythological take in those books is what I mean, and what I expect to see in the new Core: the loose "Canon" being one of Platonoc Ideals and multiversal variants, so your game might have a Mordenkainen who is a Halfling Woman from Krynn or something. There are base suggestions, that WotC will use for their IP, but are just tools for a DM in gsme.

@Henadic Theologian is a fan of aggresive 90's metaplot approaches with tight cross-media canon consistency, and is actually pretty upset about the fast and loose Canon policy which appears to be continuing for the foreseeable future. I, on the other hand, think it is great.
 
Last edited:


Parmandur

Book-Friend
The official position is everything is canon, right after Jeremy Crawford opened up WotC to Ed Greenwood lawsuit by saying nothing is canon.
Chris Perkins lays out the veylry reasonable canon policy here:

Our studio treats D&D in much the same way that Marvel Studios treats its properties. The current edition of the D&D roleplaying game has its own canon, as does every other expression of D&D. For example, what is canonical in fifth edition is not necessarily canonical in a novel, video game, movie, or comic book, and vice versa. This is true not only for lore but art as well.

This approach allows R.A. Salvatore to write Drizzt novels without having to worry if his version of the Forgotten Realms perfectly matches what we do in the roleplaying game. It means that a D&D video game can take elements from a series of novels and present them in a way that serves the game’s needs, rather than adhering to the sequence of events chronicled in the novels. Creatively, it’s liberating. This approach also acknowledges that different media have unique challenges and requirements.

Every edition of the roleplaying game has its own canon as well. In other words, something that might have been treated as canonical in one edition is not necessarily canonical in another. For example, the succubus was classified as a devil in fourth edition, even though it had been a demon in previous editions.

It can also be said that every campaign that’s ever been run in any of our published settings has its own canon. Your version of the Forgotten Realms has its own canon, which doesn’t make it any less valid than anyone else’s version. Elminster might be a lich in your Forgotten Realms campaign. Elminster might be a miniature giant space hamster in mine—both are acceptable and awesome.

Key to our approach is the belief that the story belongs to the DM and the players, not us. We make a conscious effort to preserve as many opportunities as possible for DMs to play with their own ideas. That’s why we don't produce sourcebooks that spool out a ton of backstory. The DM or player remains the ultimate arbiter of what’s true in their expressions of D&D.

 

mamba

Legend
Our studio treats D&D in much the same way that Marvel Studios treats its properties. The current edition of the D&D roleplaying game has its own canon, as does every other expression of D&D. For example, what is canonical in fifth edition is not necessarily canonical in a novel, video game, movie, or comic book, and vice versa. This is true not only for lore but art as well.
a multiverse…
 

Cause they are the same thing. Implied is the default.

D&D should have it's various D&D details, like Colored Dragons, the Outer Planes, godly pantheons, gelatinous cubes, etc in it's core books. Those are the default. Any setting that goes in a different direction spells what is different out. But to remove those things from the core heavily changes D&D.
I disagree. Someone else posted it, but the implied setting of D&D is fantasy (perhaps fantasy medieval). But the default setting would be like Grayhawk was for 3E, or Nentir Vale for 4E. They are not the same thing in this context.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top